Session2: Demonstrations on Japanese Digital TV approaches

Keiya Motohashi (NHK) - [Statement / Slides ]
→ Keiya's presentation and demonstration will include both their actual broadcasting services and their research topics

Japanese commercial broadcasting (35mins)

Yosuke Funahashi (Tomo-Digi) - [Statement / Slides (TBD) ]
→ Yosuke will mention the work of all the following Japanese commercial broadcasters in his presentation and demonstraiton

Nippon Television

TV Asahi

Tokyo Broadcasting System Television

TV Tokyo

Fuji Television

Wowow

Clarification questions for the following panel session (5mins)

Q & A

jan: question about IP connection

yosuke: 20% of TVs in Japan are IP reachable
... Web apps, e.g., twitter, are available on TV
... on the other hand TVs don't necessarily need IP connection
since they can use broadcasting radio wave

ph: how popular is interactive TVs in Japan?
... do you think it's successful?

yosuke: interactive TV service is
available without IP connection (but only using radio wave
connection), so not completely sure about the actual ratio...
... however, I can say during an interactive part of a TV program
with a 40-50 parcent audience rating could include 300,000
accesses from the audience within two minutes.
... note that in Japan all the TV system will change to digital in July 2011
... currently the rate of digital service deployment is 80%
... but the information on that kind of interactive TV service is
not well appealed to the audience

Jun Murai: the default configuration
of interactive data connection is "on" in digital broadcasting
... however, most people ara not aware and it's difficult to get
precise statistics

Habu: we can think of the Web a
being a new feature that's being added to TVs

Yamada: so yeah, this is about
adding additional features to TVs

Yu: it's also about the fact that
users can use a single device, a single terminal, to access a
wider variety of services [including the Web]

Imai: Web-on-TV and TV-on-the-Web
are closely related

Jan: it's about integrating the
TV visuals with the browser capabilities, with Web
technologies

Kawamori: a question is, do we
want everything on the Web to be available on TVs?

... do you want viruses on your TV?

... do you want your TV to go blank for a
month?

... or do we need some kind of management
of the Web?

... multimedia hinders search, hinders Web
competence [sic]

Kawamori: we have to think about
the management issue

<chaals> [I disagree. Web is
significantly based on applications now - and multimedia is
more and more feasible to automatically
interpret/manipulate/etc (SVG is an example of making the
technology support that, auto-captioning via speech reco is an
example of getting better at doing it]

... broadcasters don't want their content to be
accessible from browsers

<chaals> [management of
content is indeed an important issue, for TV, the Web and
beyond]

Google announced that they are now indexing
SVG content on the Web, and have added the capability to do
searches for specific kinds of SVG content

<Daniel> comments to
kawamori's opinion: we already have that event in W3C as Video
on the Web 2008, and three working groups are now working, and
going to the W3C recommendation. Web on TV should be different
from multimedia/video oriented on the web.

<Daniel> wow, PC and TV is
same platform ? I do not agree...

<chaals> [it has been
possible to search SVG for a long time (there are many many
search engines in the world, and a lot of important data isn't
available to the general public anyway). Things like automated
translation of automatically generated captions are still poor
quality, but for the purpose of discovery they are pretty
useful already]

<Daniel> if that happens,
nobody can enjoy their life with TV anymore. TV is still
lean-back device.

<chaals>
Youtube/Hulu/Daliymotion/etc are part lean-back, but allowing
lean-forward. Your football team on TV is pretty lean-forward,
and people alreday use twitter/facebook/etc to make it so when
their TV doesn't provide that.

<chaals> [part of the value
to broadcasters is to create stickiness by offering the
lean-forward interactions that users always got from the web,
and that mobile providers have learned to offer as they shift
from walled gardens to something like "managed" gardens]

<ddahl> although with web on
TV maybe there's actually a process of going back and forth
between lean forward and lean back at different times

<chaals> [Good point about
the fact that many people can use a TV who aren't comfortable
using web-enable devices. Looking at teletext usage in europe
bears this out - many people can use interactive hypertext
systems if they seem simple enough, even if they won't go near
a computer or mobile phone]

<ddahl> sometimes you just
want to lean back and be entertained

<Daniel> lean-forward and
lean-back at different times. agreed, but to me web is rushing
to make viewers lean-forward regardless of users intention.

- Fifth presenter - Kotaro Hashimoto, UIEvolution

kotaro: what is most
impportant?
... e.g., remote controller!
... typically many independent controllers are required
... user him/her-self has to manage all the controllers
... small characters are difficult to see
... we should re-define what "remote controller" means
... all the information could be handled within a smarter
controller (e.g., iPho

Q&A

<chaals> s/... BML and for
mobile devices/iMode and WML were based on walled gardens and
we have seen the open web competing - what are the differences
between the mobile market and the TV world/

tatsuo: we're not providing
actual content to mobile devices
... but probably need to consider contents right in the
future

jan: CE-HTML?

<jinhong> yes. CE

narm: HTML, JavaScript and CSS
are included in that
... in the future, CE 2014 might refer W3C's standards

daniel: if W3C want to cope with
CE devices, it would be great
... we have already DAP group within W3C
... don't have any specific opinion about that, though

<jinhong> now dongyoung
before, danel

kotaro: myself didn't mean reuse
of CE-HTML
... but we should be able to consider use cases first

tatsuo: agree we should think
about use cases first

mike: some comment on whether
CE-HTML etc. should be brought to W3C or not...
... we didn't coordinate before

<chaals> [+10 to Mike's
comments]

mike: video scripting is now
available in HTML5
... we should think about problems and use cases
... before considering solutions

LG: question to Samsung

<chaals> Mike: Don't just
bring a finished spec to W3C and expect it to be adopted, it
doesn't work.

yosuke: question about remote
controller
... agree controller is important
... question to Access
... difference from mobile phone as controller
(i-Aprication)
... question to UIE
... what if IP connection is not available?
... any fallback plan?

shinji: making TCP/IP connection
easy to people would be useful

kotaro: not as a substitute of
IR-based controller but smarter I/F

daniel: question to
audience
... I was wondering about people's expectation
... which direction to go?
... personally think "smarter TV" would be useful than "more
convenient TV"
... what do you think?

jan: do you mean making TV
something like PC?

daniel: you need more smarter
interaction, controller, etc.
... but is that "a smarter PC" or "a PC with a big
screen"?
... smart TV for living room (= more interactions)
... while "cozy" device means "just watch programs"

dongyoung: being "smart" vs.
"cozy" is my question as well...

jan: iPhone is getting
interactive apps using the internet
... ifyou take mobile as an example, TV is perfect
... I prefer "cozy" :)

charles: different way of
thinking
... How much does industry want people to buy "smarter
TV"?
... different use cases
... people not comfortable with PCs, who now use teletext (like
very basic BML from 1980s), will be getting more
interactivity
... People who use smartphones and PCs already will move their
interaction to that device if TV isn't useful enough for doing
the things they want to do already
... when I watch football, I just watch football, but I send
messages to people who I think are watching too
... or do we want to watch on PC, where I can already send
messages to other people watching?

debbie: user experience of PC and
use experience of TV seems quite different

→ 65-min panel discussion including brief summarization of topics discussed during the session

yosuke will be moderating

kitamoto: what do you mean by TV?
device or service provider, my preference is TV as a
metaphor

,,,TV is very important in an emergency -- my
project is "Digital Typhoon", integration of many sources of
information
...http: //www.digital-typhoon.org
... includes satellite images of this morning
... when the typhoon is approaching, there is a lot of
information coming in.
... you might want something to be pushed.

<scribe> ...new program is
more like Twitter

kim: from W3C Korea Office
... Nomadic TV among multi-domains
... focus on IPTV
... issues -- what is TV and what sort of standard is
required?
... what is TV?
... now we have various services, e.g. Google TV, various
standards like LIME, the challenges can be opportunities
... My use case is a service that was realized in the lab. the
user is watching TV, but then has to travel, and then he can
watch the same content on a mobile device.

<chaals> [hmm. Opera
implements widgets on TV (currently moving from Opera widgets
which were the initial basis of W3C widgets to the final W3C
widgets standards)]

kim: issues- user interface,
presentation, etc, (many issues listed on slide)
... some issues are dealt with in W3C and some are not

maruyama: (from NTT Cyber
Solutions)
... use case Advanced IPTV Services
... background, current Japanese IPTV, based on standards
defined by IPTV Forum, Japan
... can use BML if you have a BML-enabled device
... BML and LIME, both are based on Web standards
... ITU-T Rec H.762, (LIME) is an international standard and
can handle many languages
... BML vs. HTML, comparison --navigation via remote vs. mouse
and keyboard
... layout is absolute in BML but browser-dependent in
HTML
... media type is selected in BML but many in HTML
... BML is used as the basis for the evolution of IPTV

<Florian> ["can handle many
languages" refers to human languages, not mark up languages.
This is in contrast with Japan only technologies.]

yosuke: we have had three
presentations, different perspectives from reseachers.
questions?

jan: how is VOD supported
(broadcast, IP)?

maruyama: guarantee of quality is
another issue, in IPTV Forum there is a specification for open
Internet and CDN
... when we handle other types of content in the future,
content delivery to end users need to have the quality of
content guaranteed.
... has to be made available in the network.

jan: has IPTV Forum addressed the
quality of service question?
... (QoS)

maruyama: we have the QoS
assumption as a prerequisite

jan: is this a managed
network?

yosuke: there are both open
internet and managed available

matsuzawa: Is the assumption with
BML that it's user-independent, or can it be changed for
accessibility purposes? for example, font sizes
... if I have some preference in viewing something, how can
that be accommodated?

matsumura (NHK): in NHK, for visually disabled
we accommodate presentation, sometimes it's impossible to
change the font, we could use text-to-speech but it's difficult
to tell where to start.

scribe: we don't have any viable
solutions yet
... this is not a new requirement, we want to maintain the
requirement and we want to have some type of accommodate

ashimura: in multimodal
interaction and voice interaction, we have some interest in
accessibility and would like to ask if people if this is
important
... we need to identify all the topics for future work

yosuke: will the three presenters
talk about accessibility

kitamoto: users may be friendly
with the web but having different ways to view is expected
now

kim: the W3C in Korea we see some
issues in accessibility because of regulation

maruyama: accessibility is taking
us toward a more convenient form of usage
... when you think of remote control management, you could put
something on a remote control device

yosuke: specific comments on
accessibilty

taisuke: accessibility is much
discussed in HTML5, so perhaps we can use it

yosuke: we are looking at BML and
LIME because the use cases apply to Web on TV
... we could just focus on HTML5 when we talk about
accessibility

maroka??: does Web on TV require accessibility
or not? does user need "read aloud" functionality? if someone
can't use hands, do we need to offer an easier to operate
functionality.

scribe: if accessibilty is
required can we use HTML5

chaals: (from Opera) works on
accessibility in HTML5. older users are people who use TV but
not computers, accessibility is important for them.
... we do need some, but how much do we need is an open
question
... HTML does include a lot of capability, but you don't get
everything by using HTML, you have to do this correctly and
browsers have to do what they need to do.
... we should mark it down as something we need. certainly
there are some things we need, like font size, not sure about
TTS, most blind users I know don't watch TV on television
... but watch on PC
... some requirements are obvious but some might be too
expensive and that market is lost. But it is important to note
that it isn't just one user, but their friends as well, because
people share situations - if you go to a bar and someone is in
a wheelchair everyone in the group will go to the bar that is
accessible, and the inaccessible bar loses the entire group

oura: (from Airframe) we need to
have accessibility, push information is hard to get for
visually disabled people
... disabled people now find it difficult to access
information

<chaals> [With audio
description, captioning, there are still many possibilities on
TV, and until recently every blind person I knew watched TV on
TV. The question is whether we can build new technology well
enough to keep it useful]

yosuke: summarize discussion --
the scope of accessiblity is to take care of disabled people,
also some people who need accessibilty aren't necessarily
disabled.
... accessibility helps people participate in social
life.
... any other comments?

<chaals> [We *can* make the
technology accessible. We just need to make sure that we plan
for it and implement it properly as we are developing
technology. Often it is difficult to get it right
afterwards.]

<chaals> [Hmm. Thinking about
the first use case presented today by NHK, of providing
important information such as natural disaster warnings, it is
probably quite important to get it right...]

kim: for TV, the smart TV is for
people in general, the situation might be more complex, the
smart TV might make the situation more difficult.

yosuke: accessibility becomes
more difficult as TV becomes smarter.

chaals: not necessarily, it's
important to look at what solutions have been developed. not a
complicated technical problem, if we set the requirements and
look at what other people have done.

yosuke: I'd like to take as many
questions as possible:

jan: a question about the
emergency situation. do you see the need to provide a real-time
push with video or audio in addition to the pictures?
... where do you get additional information?
... do you need additional information to present?

Kitamoto: the more information
the better, so there is no limitation about how much
information to present
... we can increase the information sources

ashimura: can include sensor
information as well, like rain gauge
... in the push model

funahashi: this ties into the
datacast presentation from this morning

matsumura(NHK): emergency information is one
of the major missions of broadcasters

scribe: datacast needs some kind
of summarization so that it can be delivered in a push
model

yamamoto: (from Technicolor)
about natural disaster information, suppose an emergency
happens where you live but you're not watching a
broadcast
... how can emergency information be conveyed to a viewer in
that case?

???: (from Dwango) when we talked about
accessibility we talked about how far to offer support, I
wonder what broadcasting people think is too expensive or too
compllicated. is there a guideline of some sort?

chaals: in certain countries
there are legal requirements for things like captioning and
audio description
... there are strong requirements in the US and UK and they're
getting stronger over time

seki: about accessibility and
BML, this was a requirement from the beginning. we wanted to
make the load on the receiving device as light as possible
(1998).
... NHK does captioning almost 100%, commercial stations have
about 50%, now viewers' age is increasing, for example as
people become older it becomes more difficult to hear
things.
... captioning is provided even for commercials

<chaals> [/me notes that
where content is generated from a script (e.g. commercials,
drama) the data required is already available - the issue is
just how you present it. In live-generated content it can be
more difficult - but it is still pretty cheap compared to the
cost of TV production) ]

???: there will be an event in Geneva in
December on accessibilty of IPTV

ashimura: announcements. at 6:00
in lounge we will have a welcome dinner.

Topics from session5

Aggregator based TV-like media for disaster information

Nomadic TV service among multi-domains

Combination service consists of DTV, PC and mobile phone

Profile for resource limitation

Security on managed/unmaganed networks

Accessibility in "Web on TV"

Disaster/Emergency information

(Welcome dinner)

Day2 - 3 Semptember 2010

Session6: Panel on the role of HTML5 in the Web on TV, esp. expectation for HTML5 as UI

Charles presentation: HTML5 + More - More Web
for More People

Charles: I'll talk about why I
think HTML5 is important in this context.
... people didn't want very careful thought out
technology
... and HTML5 is different from previous specs: HTML4, WML,
XHTML2
... HTML5 allows you to create applications
... the Web is applications
... new in HTML5 [...]. Not in HTML5: geolocation, transition,
webfonts, database storage, ...
... they are all part of the same technology platform

[demo]

Charles: vdeio requirements:
captioning, audio description, poster, etc. question is what's
the first priorities?
... device apis are also important
... JIL, BONDI -> WAC -> W3C
... SMS, contacts, camera
... the mobile world learned: you use HTML5
... offline apps
... widgets, appcache, storage apis, web storage, database
apis, etc.
... How W3C works?
... requirements, proposals
... working group charter
... drafts, wide review
... start talking to w3c when you think you understand your
requirements
... don't go to W3C with a finished specification and try to
get adopted. W3C will want to make sure if it fits the needs of
the rest of the world

Hiroshi Omata (Jig.jp)

Hiroshi: my company is developing
jigbrowser, a browser for mobile phone
... also doing jigmovie
... jig twi, a twitter client
... this application converges twitter with browser
... I'd like to focus my talk on application side
... there are 3 areas of interest to the market
... television control decide
... device api for television
... broadcasting
... so television control device
... rather than using the remote from the tv, you could use
other devices, such as a wii
... device api for television
... with them, we'll be able to do more, eg, using the browser
on the mobile, you can display a remote control for the
television
... web and broadcasting convergence
... eg

<chaals> [If you have device
APIs, and a browser, you can use any HTML browser to control
the TV with a webserver. The idea of Opera Unite is to make it
easy to build systems like this for any pair of devices (Opera
Unite is really just a webserver built into the browser)]

<video> <source
src='tv:1ch'/> </>

Hiroshi: this will give us more
opportunities
... maybe in the future, we'll be able to see any web pages on
the television

<jinhong> Also using device
APIs, I want to control TV tuner on my TV.

<chaals> [Web browsers on the
TV that also give access to the open web have been around for
years]

<jinhong> like channel
control

Kazunori Tanikawa (NEC)

Tanikawa: involved ITU-T
standardization
... regarding a11y: how can we provide communitcation tools for
people with disabilities
... W3C has already made great contributions to a11y
... such WACG 1.0, 2.0
... examples of improvements
... by using CSS, we could adapt the page for color visual
impairment individuals
... protanopic, deuteranopic, tritanopic
... other example is emergency alerts
... it's very important to have secure communication
tools
... with HTML5, how we present the information is
important
... Web sockets, web messaging can be candidate for
solutions
... we need to identify more specific solutions
... whether it's done at W3C or not, I don't know
... Emerging UI
... HTML5 offers a good opportunity to create new consumption
style on TV

<jinhong> Does a member of
DAP participate in W3C on this workshop?

jinhong, I don't believe so, or maybe chaals
is

Masao Goho (Microsoft)

<chaals> I am not a member of
DAP, but Opera is involved there (and in WAC, which is working
on things that need to be done in DAP)

Masao: the role of HTML5 in the
Web on TV

<chaals> [No flash in my
demos]

Masao: devices: we have different
devices as a platofrm
... and now the TV is supported
... HTML5, if we case use it as a common platform, we have to
think how it will be used
... Contents: existing BML (BML to HTML5?)...
... for instance, for touch interface, it depends on the
devices
... if you have touch screen functionalities, you want to sit
far away from the screen
... but you may have a device in front of you
... content: two ways communication. how active are the
users?
... if it's a must requirement, should it be done by the TV,
and how do we use it?
... let me talk about IE9
... trying to put together some platform
... we'll like to get your feedback

Oen session

Debbie: I'll like to open the
discussion to the rest of the group
... any question for the speakers?

Daniel_Park: HTML5 seems to be
very nice from a Web prospective. PC is a good platform.
... all of HTML5 is not possible on other devices
... we need to prioritize the functionalities from TV
prospective

Charles: At Opera, we expect to
make HTML5 on all our supported devices. we run opera mini on
very basic telephone
... we haven't got a complete HTML5 implemetation because the
spec isn't finished yet
... in terms of prioritizing: the success of the iphone proves
that you don't need to meet carrier certifications
... but every carrier in the world wants to have it, because
it's an attractive platform
... the same applies to android
... dont' spend time thinking very detailed requirements and
priorities, spend that time developing a platform that
works
... we're in the business of providing services
... HTML5 is designed so it can be ran on all devices
... we produced opera on all kind of devices
... trying to prioritize isn't worth of time
... we'll spend millions of dollars being irrelevant to the
market

Hiroshi: compared to PC, the
resources are limited. we cannot support all of HTML5
... we want to profile our users to prioritize their needs

Masao: HTML5 is linked with the
hardware now. there are some common interfaces we need to put
together to decrease the burden on the enterprise side
... we need to get the priority from the customers

Kazunori: from ITU-T perspective,
we put together priorities
... HTML5 itself is a little delayed in launching into the
market
... depending on the organization, you might have different
prospectives

Florian_(Opera): HTML5 isn't a new platform.
we don't have to spend thinking about what people wants, we
already see what's theu're using

Florian_(Opera): if we don't provide it on the
TV, they'll look somewhere else

scribe: people want the Web as it
is and if it can do more fine, but get them the Web first
... and then extend to do more
... best way to extend it is talk at W3C

Aaron_(Huawei): concerns about priorities:
video is highest priority for us

Aaron_(Huawei): best interaction

scribe: very simple interaction
is our second requirement
... even email or twitter is advanced
... app store is also important

Toshiyuki_Maeda_(tv_asahi): in japan,
broadcasting and telecommmunication convergence has has been a
hot topic. displaying on the same screen isn't enough

Toshiyuki_Maeda_(tv_asahi): we need hyperlinks
in broadcasting streaming and changing the display

scribe: with BML, it's already a
reality
... in BML, we're not satisfy it is done.
... BML can follow the speed of TV in terms of seconds
... if hyperlink is provided by broadcaster, people won't have
to go to their PC

Takara_Nakasone_(NTV): when it comes to tv
perspective, in Japan, they are TVs that were sold more than 50
years ago

Takara_Nakasone_(NTV): but there is a gap in
terms of web space

scribe: it's a challenge to
us
... I don't suppose we can replace tv sets every 2 or 3
years
... tvs are used for 10 years

Charles_(Opera): mobile phones in third
countries is many years longer than in Japan or US

Charles_(Opera) there is a long upgrade cycle
in computers as well

scribe: Opera runs on 15 years
old technologies
... like Windows 95
... Microsoft doesn't support this platform anymore
... there are strategies we can use to fill the gap
... it's possible to do upgrade in PCs, but not in TVs. why
not?
... we could build devices that will last

<kaz> s/scribe: if we don't
provide/Florian_(Opera): if we don't provide/

Jan (Ericsson): on flash vs html5, how does it
compare? are we keeping up?

Charles: Flash covers some video
cases that I don't think we cover yet

<kaz> s/scribe: best
interaction/Aaron_(Huawei): best interaction/

Charles: when Opera proposed
video in HTML in 2007, flash was there already
... how long will it have an advantage? probably one year
... flash and the Web are two entire technology stacks
... the Web is available on a much more wider set of
devices
... opera is making television that have access to the free Web
for years

plh: what about DRM?

Charles (opera): DRM clearly matters to the
industry

scribe: most serious hard code
developers can't believe
... all DVDs ship with DRM, but they can still be copied
... all DRM can be broken
... but it has a value to the industry
... people still buy dvd
... I don't know why
... morally the right thing to do, more convenient, etc.
... HTML5 right now doesn't seem to have particular support for
DRM, I don't think it would make to include into HTML5
... it will get cracked
... it would make sense to look at the APIs around video

<jinhong> DRM issue on video,
we remember music industry.

scribe: to make sure that they
are DRM capable

<jinhong> also, HTML5 does
not deal with DRM issues

scribe: the browser should know
that it can't play a video because of lack of rights rather
than network error
... the industry should go to the HTML needs to make their
requirements clear
... otherwise the group won't bother taking them into
account

scribe: premiuin content on tv
has a different business content than the Web
... Web doesn't have premium content
... as of now
... imo, I'm not sure if W3C should deal with DRM or not in
HTML5

Hiroshi: talking to a company,
they told that protection is breached at some point or the
other. it will be compromise whatever you do
... this company is producing content btw

Charles: I don't think W3C is the
place to make DRM system
... it's not the place with the experts, and some of them think
it's a waste of time
... it's useful to go to W3C and tell them we'll use DRM in
video or application
... WAC, mobile app world, is looking into DRM
... also Ruppert Murdoch is planning that you're wrong, ie that
users will pay

Yoshitaka_Kasugai_(Microsoft): I'm in charge
of silverlight and IE. DRM is a technology to encrypt content.
W3C is a standard org, and there is no inconsistency between
those two

scribe: you'll need acces to free
and non-free content. for free content, you'll be able to use
HTML5 for video content

?: I agree that W3C isn't the place to
implement DRM, but you can mark some content that it cannot be
saved

scribe: some optional headers or
marker
... you should be able to mark
... the content, for it to be protected

<Daniel> question to W3C: how
and how protect contents on the Web ? by google ?

fukuno: I myself believe that DRM
is related to ethics. people are interested in advanced app
like twitter. should be able to "quote" video in order to talk
about it

maeda: if there is a hyperlink on
broadcast content, this would be more convenient

<Daniel> To Philippe, Well,
in current situation, if DRM is protected to any contents by
studios, you can't unfortunately. It's their compliance rule
and very very strict...

maeda: if we can adopt html5, we
can expect better presentation of the content

<Daniel> very serious talks
are required to studio. I had these real experiences for
several years.

Yosuke: in this group, there are
participants providing content for Web and others for TV
... Opera is interested in providing access to video
... within a Web page
... the way of offering between tv and web is very much
different
... maybe we can incorporate web content into the program so
users can visit the web through the program
... DRM doesn't have to be done by us, but if web on tv is to
offer premium content, we won't be able to avoid copyright
management
... otherwise we'll need to do something different
... if the algorithm from Microsoft is open, it could be
considered as a solution

Florian (opera): there is another issue:
parental control. how is it similar to DRM? what should be done
about it at the W3C level is probably similar to DRM.

scribe: we'll need to inform the
Web browser why it was blocked

Charles (Opera): W3C has spent about 15 years
on technologies to enable parental control. it's not interested
in deciding what is appropriate or not

scribe: like POWDER
... it has been designed to provide a framework to apply
rules

Kaz: considering this session is
about UI, I'm concerned about the current focus. if there is a
need to have a device to control the screen from a distance

<inserted> ... some kind of
AR technology might be also useful

Taisuke_Fukuno: I think you can
talk about many interface. very difficult to decide on one
format. we need an open technology.
... regarding parental control, if W3C can come up with some
kind of control...

Charles: it can be done

Masao (Microsoft): there is parent control in
IE but it isn't well known.

<chaals> [IE has been
implementing W3C parental control technology (allowng parents
to decide what level they set for *their kids*) since IE 3.0
...]

scribe: re interfaces, you can
link various devices together

Kazunori: I think we need an
other perspective. in Afghanistan, there was a paper cover of a
woman with a damaged face, many shops didn't display the
journal
... everything on the Web isn't accepted on the TV screen

Oura_(Airframe): listening to the debate, tv
and remote control device with one person watching, but many
people are watching the same TV

scribe: you should be able to see
the information on the device in your hands.
... you can authorize content access based on age. so, the
terminals would hang under the TV screen
... several devices
... if W3C can define rules to create that kind of linkage
would be ideal

Daniel Park: I'm now really curious: parental
control is a past issue on tv

scribe: watching tv all together
in living room
... would be valuable to have directions from w3c

Charles: we got distracted from
the topic: HTML5 for UI. it's an important topic. there is a
lot we can do with that
... Opera has been making TV UIs in HTML for years

Jan (Ericsson): we talked about HTML, what
about SVG?

scribe: you might want to make it
more interactive

Charles: when say HTML here, we
are really talking about the Web technology stack
... SVG was designed for phone, long before the iphone

Yosuke: if HTML5 is used for UI,
it's just a potential candidate. but web on tv has a lot of
issues
... is html5 truly the solution for all of the issues
... we cannot decide here
... html5 is one of the very powerful candidate

Debbie: thank you all for this
session

Topics from session6

Prioritization of HTML5 features

TV product cycle length

Flash vs. video tag

DRM in HTML5

Premium content

hyperlink in video content

Parental control

Control from device

Device format independence

Content linkage between PC and TV

Content appropriateness

HTML5 for UI

Role of SVG

(Morning Break)

Session7: Panel on the role of HTML5 in the Web on TV, esp. TV as the hub within home network

- Fourth presenter - Masaru Yamamoto (Technicolor)

Masaru: technicoror is former
Thomson
... provides set top boxes
... many DLNA certified devices have been deployed
... hybrd broadcasting
... on the other hand, users are getting confused because of
the tremendous amount of the contnets
... "2nd screen" as remote controller
... needs for UI/apps on CE platforms
... broadcasters want to keep control of content presentation,
etc.
... and, where should we go?
... we need an integrated platform
... open/flexible platform
... device agnostic
... bridge for home and Web

<jayy> who manage HGW?

Masaru: difference between "home
gateway" and "TV"

Q&A

yosuke: any question?

jan: question to the last
presenter

masaru: TV as rendering device
could be located anywhere in home
... home gateway could be another device

jan: do you have any initial
requirement for W3C?

masaru: not yet

matsuzawa: it's interesting to
have public APIs for TV as home-networked devices
... but it might be dangerous to control ovens etc. from
outside
... may be it should be OK to have private APIs?

katsuhiko: public APIs for ovens
etc. would be problematic
... so maybe the functionality should be restricted
... regarding the merit of providing that kind of APIs itself,
it could be useful for some people

hiroyuki: agree it could be
problematic
... and think we should make decision about guideline,
etc.
... however, defining template of public APIs would make
sense
... since it would be troublesome if those APIs are vendor
specific

tatsuya: agree with katsuhiko and
hiroyuki about privacy, danger etc.

masaru: agree with others about
security and privacy
... regarding need for public APIs, it would be better for an
open eco system to involve various vendors to provide public
ones

charles: agree it would be
dangerous :)
... the fundamental point is communication between various
devices within home
... you can use geoloc info using your phone
... people working for specific devices should be
involved
... opera unite has a web server in a browser
... it could be the central controller
... you could standardize that
... regarding discovery problem, your web server has a specific
URI
... we already know privacy and security are important
... turning on air conditioner before my getting home could be
a nice use case

tatsuya: would like to
concentrate on positive side today :)
... we need to standardize technology to promote industry
more

masao_isshiki: has been working
for ECHONET, consortium for home network technology
... and would consider homenet/web integration

hiroyuki: agree it wouldn't be
great to define vendor specific APIs
... we would like to learn from the success of web apis
standardization

tatsuya: there are several
existing standardization works like DLNA and EHCONET
... and think universal approach is required

maeda: web on tv might be too
restricted
... "how to put broadcasting contents on TV device"
... for example we can see broadcasting contents using mobile
phones (1-seg)
... also we can access the Web using this mobile
... during the previous session, somebody said "HTML5 is
available on all the devices"
... but TV contents are also available

masaru: I also mentioned "2nd
display"
... both TV contents and Web contents are available on various
devices
... I'd let "2nd display" recorded in the note

katsuhiko: I think controlling
home-networked devices could be a topic of device APIs

HwaKyung: canvas or CSS3 for
UI?
... richer capability of TV is enough with HTML5?

hiroyuki: requirements for
HTML5
... that's service dependent
... the current "HTML5" can do many things
... but getting events (process done) and changing processes
are not yet clearly defined

yosuke: regarding hardware
resources?

tatsuya: we should clarify use
cases
... and start by describing the app you want and how to make
it, then think about what to do
... it's one of the merit we standardize something because it's
cost effective
... but this time, it would be better we consider use cases
first

hiroyuki: there would be
differences of performance between devices
... but Web technology should be scalable

HwaKyung: just want to remind use
cases are very important
... device performance is quite diverse
... we should consider not only the high-end devices
... but less powerful devices

Florian Rivoal

scribe: opera ships browsers for
less powerful devices (e.g., w/ 8MB RAM)
... It isn't necessarily very expensive to get full web
capability, and it is very expensive to try and build part of
the Web and then make enough applications that are good enough
to convince users to give up the full web they have and keep
buying the profile version

mike: disagree :)
... regarding TV, there is a long list of required features
(other than Web browsing)
... another point
... W3C do client side technologies
... not include device connection, negotiation like DLNA
... so we need to focus on that part (=client side software
technology)

jan: question to the panel
... DLNA/UPnP will be Framework for exchanging controlling the
protocol
... which W3C doesn't care

tatsuya: discovery should be
discussed
... but protocol could be anything, e.g., websocket, soap
... we're willing to have discussion

- Summarization

yosuke: peripheral devices for
"Web on TV"

tatsuya: not only "peripheral
devices" but also independent devices

yosuke: this was mentioned by
hiroyuki

<chaals> [Agree with Tatsuya
that thinking as if the TV is *the* centre, and everything will
revolve around that, isn't a good way to make sure we are
looking carefully at the real world]

yosuke: (continue to review the
topics from this session)

<chaals> [(because if TV
doesn't do a good enough job, then it will stop being part of
the home network...)]

[ yeah, I think multimodal architecture is
kind of related to that idea :) ]

tatsuya: "profile" should be
split into two topics: 1. pick up several features and define a
new set and 2. selecting several features and define a sub
set

jan: like the word
"profile"
... which is the minimum "profile" for devices?

Florian: time spent creating
profiles that restrict which part of HTML can be use will only
result in loss of compatibility with the existing web. This
destroys more value than it saves cost.

mike: defining "profile" is not
the bible of W3C
... it has been very painful to define profiles
... profiling takes years
... device capability improves faster than the standardization
work
... it's not easy to define profiles

HwaKyung: my question is
... W3C should consider people who owns web services
... many TVs with various performance
... W3C should consider accessibility for them

ph: we have done profiling for
mobile web activity
... two mobile profiles
... there were many similar discussions when we did mobile
profiles

masaru: regarding profiling
... requirements should be defined based on the needs of
contents providers and users

→ 70-min panel discussion including brief summarization of topics discussed during the session

Firtst presenter: Youngil Kim (KT)

kim: overview
... QOOK TV
... - Brand name KT's IPTV
... - About 1.6 million subscribers
... - Based on DVB standards
... - a Walled Garden service
... - not so popular as in japanese DTV services
... - market decide the killer service; openness is
important
... Plans to "OPEN"
... - Java developers or community in korea is so small

<ddahl_> the MMI Architecture
would especially apply to devices that capture and react to
user input

matsuzawa: optimization?

jun: there are several
examples of content optimization for Web, e.g., CSS

matsuzawa_miriad: comment:
optimized retrieval of application

jun: think it would be more
productive to focus on how to apply Web technology to devices

charles: an application
could work nicely for powerful devices but should work for less
powerful devices
... application developers should be the ones who decide how to use the
expression capability of each cousumer devices
... we can use existing
Web technology for scalable apps
... and then choose the best one.

<kaz> (discussion between jan
and charles)

someone: how applications lookup
device specs or capabilities.

Seconnd presenter: TV and cellphone (monitor resolution)

ph: (mentions Device
APIs WG and wonders about what kind of APIs should be discussed
here)

charles: should start
with use cases
... changing channels, etc.

<Florian> [user agent
sniffing is possible, and useful in certain cases. But it
should be used with care: because of the huge variety in
devices, it doesn't scale very well. Capability detection,
media queries, etc, scale much better. Check what the device
can do, not which device it is]

charles: program guide

<kaz> (APIs for what?)

jan: (if it's defined
within W3C) the APIs should be open
... from the view point of TV and STB, what kind of API will be
needed by these devices.

<kaz> (jan: video tags for
HTML and SVG, etc.)

mike: APIs should be language independent
... you should be using Web IDL
... generic APIs

jan: Yes, we looked
at converting what we have to Web IDL. SHouldn't be too hard,
but we haven't done it

florian: would make lot
of sense to add APIs for EPG, channels, etc.
... who write down the spec doesn't matter. mutual reference is important.

kawamori: about EPG API
... if you use HTTP, you can get any data
... do we really need that specific API for TV terminal?
... we don't need very complicated API

charles:
we should start with use cases, not start with API
... then think about what is missing

<jinhong> I agreed charles,
but this meeting the service providers are not many
participated.

jan: extract program information
from broadcast signals. (in the situation no ip
connectivity)

<kaz> kawamori: we have to be
clear about what sort of use cases we have

jan: an example from satelite
broadcasting

<kaz> kawamori: if hybrid
usage is an actual use case, it's ok

someone: usecase is already
discussed a lot. why more use cases needed?

<kaz> nobuo: why use case
again??? shouldn't we move ahead?

<kaz> ph: we discussed use
cases on several (different) topics so far

<kaz> nobuo: W3C once
discussed "video on web" several years ago

<kaz> ... and this workshop
is dedicated to "Web on TV" (or rather "Web and Web"

<kaz> ... just thinking about
use cases would not make much sense, would it?

Afternoon Break: Prioritization of use cases and requirements

→ during the break, held a vote on use cases/requirements from
the previous sessions so that we can prioritize use cases and identify potential
new languages and language extensions

We asked all the attendees to nominate a representative from each
organization, and asked the representatives to vote on their preferred
use cases/requirements using five colored stickers. To see if there
is any difference between the preference of W3C Members and
non-Members, Member companies used green stickers and non-Members used
yellow stickers.

Next steps

kaz: everyone is interested in
API's between TV and remote, personalization and
accessibility
... what is the next step?
... goal of workshop is to idendtify key use cases and
requirements, new standards, impediments in current
standards
... i believe we need a new WG and generate dedicated
specifications
... the audience includes broadcasters, service providers,
device vendors, and software vendors
... we heed a charter and scope. participants must be W3C
members, and we need a Chair or co-chairs
... who is interested in WG?

fujisawa: first clarify what kind of work is
involved before asking who is interested

kaz: who is interested in the
initial group?
... all the topics we have discussed today?
... we don't want to stop the momentum

fujisawa: what you are suggesting here in terms of
the Web on TV, are you trying to launch a WG? there are so many
interesting use case, there might be a high level activity with
several WG's

kaz: that is a great question. we
haven't identified the scope yet, we could have separate WG's
for different topics, first we write the charter and then start
the WG

kim: we had video on Web WS a few
years ago, and we had several WG's coming from that, we have to
decide this first

chaals: deciding to start a WG is
too quick, there is clear interest on several topics, we need
to disseminate the results to the rest of the W3C and the TV
community
... we could also have an IG, with some amount of time to
identify the things we're working on, then we can propose
charters
... some ideas don't need a separate WG, work would go in in
existing WG's
... would be more useful to start an IG to get started

kaz: would like to ask the
audience how to proceed, start an IG, send topics to existing
WG's

???: we could vote, we could start a group for
items that attracted a lot of voting

kaz: we could think about who is
interested in which topics
... what kind of topics could be discussed in greater
detail

funahashi: we could start up IG
or WG, we are speaking sometimes in different languages because
we come from different domains
... the topics could be distributed to different WG's and this
would promote understanding among people from different
domains.
... there are some topics that we haven't reached understanding
on.
... we could specify more interesting points later.

kaz: there are several options,
IG, multiple WG's

daniel: there are a little more
than 100 people with many interests, we should have a very
concrete proposal for moving forward.
... prefer to create a WG, IG would be too time-consuming. the
main goal of a workshop is to make a decision for moving
forward.
... would like to have a clear direction (this is an official
comment from Samsung)

???: why don't we we think about forming an IG
first, and we can invite non-members, if they have to join W3C
first, it might take a long time to make the decision.

scribe: WG is not suitable for
the long term interest of this group

chaals: agrees with Fujisawa-san,
it's important for non-members to join the discussion, and
joining the W3C and WG is time-consuming .

the IG should be explicitly chartered to look
at the things that have come from this workshop as important,
should have a time limit of 3 months

scribe: this would make sure that
we have the right participants
... it's also useful to maintain an IG as a place for more
general discussion and to help disseminate the work of
WGs
... this is Opera's official position

mikeSmith: even more lightweight
option would be to set up a mailing list

chaals: we do need to do this
work and I do want to move forward. we should set up a mailing
list by all means.
... we can discuss this on mailing list and in IG before we
jump into making a decision

Narm(Intel): representing Intel, would like to ask
about how Touch WG was formed.

phl: the Touch WG is under
review, it hasn't been created yet, the current charter was
done after several negotiations, it was not done from a
workshop.

ph: there are quite a few ways to
create groups, one is to have a workshop and see what the sense
of the workshop is, then a mailing list is created, there's
some discussion, and someone comes up with a charter.
... then after discussion, the proposal is sent out to the
whole W3C membership. this discussion is an important part of
the process.
... scope is an important part of the discussion, we could come
up with some items today,
... that is an important part of the process

kaz: a question for non-members?
are any of you interested in becoming members? Sony, NHK,
television guys?

???: we can't decide now, I can't make that
decisinon now. providing content that users want is important,
but DRM is very important to us.

scribe: section 2-2 and 2-6 talks
about DRM, so those tallys should be combined.

mkeSmith: the fact of this
workship is an indication that W3C is very interested in this
topic.
... we have new CEO from Novell, who has a solid industry
backgound, we are working on aligning with industry needs and
market needs.
... the way that these decisions get made is through people
within organizations socializing the W3C.I will be happy to
come at any time.

lee: from LG, our position is
that we don't object to making a WG and we would probably join,
if we don't have a clear idea we should have an IG first. we
should limit the IG to 2 or 3 months.

habu: (Allied Resources) we would
be interested in joining the W3C and a WG, but not if there is
no clear direction. TV now has a lot of standards, some haven't
gotten much attention.
... already in BML there is an API for broadcasting, we should
look at existing standards and follow up on those. that would
decide on the scope and be useful in considering the scope.

<chaals> [+1 to looking at
existing approaches as a useful activity to getting a clear
scope quickly]

jan: the open activitiy forum
believes in DRM and would invite Japanese broadcasters to look
at our use cases.
... it is open, please look at our requirements.

chaals: W3C doesn't not believe
in DRM

Nobuo_Saito: in the discussion of IG vs.
WG, both can be started, IG could deal with accessibility and
DRM. is it correct that non-members can participate in IG?

kaz: we have an invited expert
process, but it is getting more and more difficult to get
approval for that. it is true that we can start both IG and
WG

yosuke: in order to produce some
results in an IG we should give some due date, like 2-3
months
... globally we have much more participation we have to come up
with a charter of global interest. getting people together and
expressing opinions doesn't lead to progress.
... we have to start some project, or we won't produce any
results. we can have the IG and WG established together. if we
need taht we need to estabilish goals first, that will lead to
nowhere.

daniel: how much real
implementation can we open during an IG discussion? in this
room most people are from Asia, but all W3C was invited.
... we have to make a clear direction for that activity. our
conclusion today must be official.
... if we can make our decision to make a WG, lack of
participation from other countries is not a problem.

kaz: we can ask participants
about IG, WG, XG, or mailing list options, then consider some
concrete timeline.
... the first possibility is a WG; who is interested in forming
a WG on Web on TV topics?

florian: the confusion now is why
we need an IG, we're confused about the scope of a WG.

chaals: Opera is interested in
the work, but would like to see a charter before committing to
a WG.

kaz: 40 people are interested in
an IG
... timeline?

???: (Intel) is this vote just for members or
is the vote one per company?

kaz: I think 40 people interested
should be ok

plh: I see a lot of interest in the
API between the TV and the remote, maybe would fit into Device API
work, maybe the hyperlink in video can fit into existing video
in the Web Activity.
... I invited individuals who are interested in hyperlinks in video to contact me./

kaz: another option is fitting
into existing groups

Nobuo_Saito: whether to form IG that
still requires a charter, so maybe need to identify a
representative from each country to develop a charter for IG, and
then we ask members if they want to join that.

scribe: let's identify
representatives and ask them to form a charter

kaz: we need a charter even for
an IG

kaz: IG can provide input to
other groups, as a conclusion, we can form an IG and they can
provide input to other WG's

chaals: we request W3C to form an
IG in this area and that IG may lead to WG's.
... IG should be as fast as possible within W3C process

kaz: conclusion is to bring this
to W3C

ph: we need someone to write a
charter and to chair the IG, please let kaz know

<chaals> [I volunteer to help
draft a charter (but will not chair)]

kaz: who is interested in
chairing?

<chaals> [Funahashi-san
volunteers!!]

kaz: yosuke

???: I think we should form a WG now, too.

scribe: for some of the topics
that are clear.
... we need to have a charter and we need to think about
members who aren't present, but we can start a WG from any
items that we're clear about.
... we should start from IG first

kaz: there are some very much
preferred topics, where existing WG's are working. it will
facilitate the process if the IG starts.

???: a concrete timeline, like February or
November for a face to face meeting

chaals: volunteered to write
charter, but it takes at least 1-2 months from now to have the IG
formally chartered and running, an informal mailing list could
start early next week. ... a WG takes longer

jan: what about the proposed European
workshop? Will that be an IG meeting?

ph: we haven't confirmed that
workshop, IG or WG could have a workshop, but people in Europe
may want to join sooner.

<chaals> s/1-2 months/1-2
months from now to have the IG formally chartered and
runnun/

jan: in the European workshop we
could consider more use cases or refine use cases.

chaals: if there is a workshop in
Q1 next year it will be far from finished. Opera would still be
interestedin participating.

s/interestedin/interested in

<chaals> s/a WG takes
longer/a WG will probably take until about Christmas to
develop/

daniel: do we have to submit a
position paper again?

dong-young: I would like to make it clear that the IG
is just to identify the work and it should be done as soon as
possible.

kaz: by Christmas, a few
months.

dong-young: three months is acceptable, but the
shorter the better.

chaals: 3 months is the time it
takes to charter and get participants signed up, 3 months is
realistic

omata: what is the action plan?
only mailing list

kaz: maling list can be created
Monday or Tuesday, but IG or WG takes longer, need to follow
process, need charter and official proposal. it is impossible
to do it in two weeks.
... we need to make a mailing list and continue talking.

HyeonJae_Lee(LG): possible IG chairs are Funahashi-san and
Kawamori-san
... would like to have yet another co-chair from browser company?

Kaz's note: Though not clearly
recorded in the minutes, HyeonJae Lee from LG also volunteered to
be a candidate co-Chair for the expected TV IG.

chaals: Opera is already
providing many chairs, so there is a limit, we will
participate, however

funahashi: about the timeline,
everyone seems to agree on Christmas as a goal, of course we first
have to come up with an IG charter. ... in two weeks we
will have the minutes of the workshop, so by the end of September
we will have the schedule and the process plan for making the
charter. We will look at the socpe of three months and do as much
as possible.

kaz: you create a charter to
explain the purpose of the IG or WG, all the 70 WG's and IG's
have written charter describing their work.
... who is going to be the chair, the staff contact,
activities, specifications, material that they're going to use
in the specificaiton.

isa: today's decision to
establish an IG is to talk about the items that have been
mentioned and organize the ideas, is that right?

kaz: the two co-chairs will
discuss how to continue with that.
... thanks to everyone that was a wonderful discussion.

(adjourned)

<yosuke> s/have a charter
proposal/have the shedule and the process plan for making the
charter/

kaz: to confirm, the two people
who volunteered to co-chair the IG are Funahashi-san and
Kawamori-san, and Chaals volunteered to write the charter.